Overfishing has caused cod to halve in body size since 1990s, study finds
Overfishing has led to a collapse in the eastern Baltic cod population, but over the past three decades the size of the fish themselves has also been dramatically and mysteriously shrinking.
Now scientists have uncovered genomic evidence that intensive fishing has driven rapid evolutionary changes that have contributed to these fish roughly halving in average body length since the 1990s.
The 'shrinking' of cod, from a median mature body length of 40cm in 1996 to 20cm in 2019, has a genetic basis and human activities have left a profound mark on the population's DNA, the study concluded.
'When the largest individuals are consistently removed from the population over many years, smaller, faster-maturing fish gain an evolutionary advantage,' said Prof Thorsten Reusch, head of the marine ecology research division at Geomar Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel and senior author of the research.
'What we are observing is evolution in action, driven by human activity. This is scientifically fascinating, but ecologically deeply concerning.'
The dramatic shrinking of cod has been a source of concern for several decades, but it was not clear to what extent the phenomenon has been driven by environmental factors such as hypoxic conditions caused by algal blooms, pollution and more extreme marine seasonal temperature changes.
'It was very hard to prove that it was an evolution that had happened,' said Dr Kwi Young Han, first author of the study, who completed her PhD at Geomar.
The study used an archive of tiny ear bones, called otoliths, of 152 cod, caught in the Bornholm Basin between 1996 and 2019. Otoliths – a bit like tree rings – record annual growth, making them valuable biological timekeepers.
The scientists combined annual growth data with the cods' body size metrics and genetics to assess whether there had been a genetic shift in the population over 25 years under fishing pressure.
Between 1996 and 2019, the median length of a mature cod in the dataset fell from 40cm to 20cm. The median weight in 2019 (272 grams) was just a fifth of the median weight of a mature cod caught in 1996 (1,356 grams).
The analysis revealed systematic differences between fast- and slow-growing fish and that the gene variants that make a large body size more likely have become less common over time, indicating an evolutionary pressure.
Trawling is intended to be size selective, with legally binding minimal mesh sizes designed to protect smaller individuals and allow fish to reach maturity and spawn before being caught.
However, this may have had the unintended consequence of producing a strong selective evolutionary pressure in favour of smaller fish, which would be more likely to escape the nets.
'The demographic argument is that each individual should at least reproduce once before being caught,' said Reusch. 'While this seems logical in terms of keeping a healthy demography of fish stocks, it has the potential to totally mess up the genetic and size structure.'
The findings, published in the journal Science Advances, could help explain why there has been no rebound in the body size since the collapse of the stock prompted a complete fishing ban of eastern Baltic cod in 2019, which remains in place.
Prof Stefano Mariani, a marine biologist at Liverpool John Moores University, who was not involved in the research, said the genetic analysis could not explain the full extent of the shrinking that has been observed, with environmental factors probably also playing a significant role.
But he said showing that 'the activities of humans can speed up evolution' was a 'milestone' result that highlights the importance of monitoring the gene pool of fish populations, as well as simply tracking numbers of fish.
'It would be really good to try to maintain diversity because as soon as you chop away a certain section of diversity, it's like losing an insurance for the future where that might have an advantage,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
10 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Look familiar? Scientists reveal what Neanderthals and Denisovans would look like TODAY if they hadn't gone extinct
For the last 40,000 years, Homo sapiens have been the only human species walking the Earth. Our ancient ancestors died out thousands of years ago, leaving behind nothing but fossils, a few scattered artefacts, and lingering traces in our DNA. But what if things had turned out differently? MailOnline has asked the experts to find out what the world might look like if the Neanderthals and Denisovans hadn't gone extinct. Surprisingly, they say that our distant evolutionary cousins might not be all that different to modern humans today. However, they might have had a hard time fitting in with our fast-paced, highly social societies. Dr April Noel, a palaeolithic archaeologist from the University of Victoria, told MailOnline: 'The idea that Neanderthals were hunched over, dim-witted individuals with no thought beyond their next meal is no longer tenable. 'At the same time, the idea that you could just slap a hat on a Neanderthal and you would not think twice about sitting next to him on the tube is also out the window.' What would they look like? Neanderthals and Denisovans are our closest ancient human relatives. The Neanderthals emerged around 400,000 years ago when they branched off from our common ancestors. Denisovans, meanwhile, are a far more elusive species of ancient humans who split from the Neanderthal evolutionary line around 430,000 years ago. If they had remained as separate species rather than going extinct, Neanderthals and Denisovans might look much the same as they did in the distant past. From the abundant fossil records, we know that Neanderthals were a little shorter than us on average, with shorter legs and wider hips. Neanderthals were very muscular and rugged, with large bodies and even larger heads. Their skulls show that they have room for a bigger brain than modern humans and would have been distinguished by a massive brow ridge and small foreheads. Neanderthals are our closest living relatives and share all our features to some degree. However, neanderthals have a stronger brow and a smaller forehead. Their skin tone would have depended on their climate, much like modern humans today (AI-generated impression) What would Neanderthals look like today? If Neanderthals survived until today, they might keep many of their original traits. This means they would be stockier and more heavily built than modern humans, with shorter legs and larger heads. Their faces would be distinguished by heavy brows and small foreheads. However, experts say that humans and Neanderthals would probably keep interbreeding. This means that these traits would become mixed with those of Homo sapiens. However, experts say they still would be clearly recognisable as fellow humans. Professor John Hawks, an anthropologist from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, told MailOnline: 'We don't know of any physiological traits that make Neanderthals distinct, that is, traits that don't overlap. 'Almost every physical trait in Neanderthals overlaps in its variation with ours today, at least to some extent.' That means they wouldn't look like lumbering cavemen or women, but rather like a slightly different variation of humans. Denisovans, meanwhile, are a little more of a mystery. It was only this month that scientists identified the first Denisovan skull, and besides this, there are only small fragments of bone to go on. Based on the newly identified skull, experts believe that Denisovans would have had a wide face with heavy, flat cheeks, a wide mouth, and a large nose. These bones also show that Denisovans would have been exceptionally large and muscular people, much stronger than more slender Homo sapiens. Not all that different However, experts say that Homo sapiens, Denisovans, and Neanderthals might not have remained that distinct for long. These human species interbred widely during the periods they overlapped, and many modern humans carry at least some Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA. If these species hadn't vanished, they might have continued to interbreed and further intermix our genes. Dr Hugo Zeberg, an expert on gene flow from Neanderthals and Denisovans into modern humans from the Karolinska Institutet in Sweden, told MailOnline: 'In a way they never went extinct. We merged!' 'Probably the relatively low amount of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in present humans reflects the fact that modern humans [Homo sapiens] were more numerous. 'But with more chances of encounters, we might have more archaic DNA present in the gene pool of modern humans.' We're still learning about how ancient genes influence modern humans, so it's hard to say what effects this mixing might produce. Neanderthals and modern humans interbred when we overlapped and would likely continue to into the future. Scientists say that male Neanderthal and Homo sapiens female couples would have had the highest likelihood of producing fertile hybrid offspring (AI-generated impression) Could modern and ancient populations merge? Scientists say it is extremely likely that Homo sapiens, Neanderthals, and Denisovans would eventually merge if no species went extinct. The resulting species would have genetic traits from all three groups. Since modern humans reproduce faster and build larger communities, they would likely represent more of the genetic material. This is essentially what happened to these species in the past. Our modern genome contains traits passed on from breeding with these ancient species before they disappeared. But Dr Zeberg points out that Denisovan genes are responsible for 'high altitude adaptation for Tibetans and some influence on lip shape in Latin American populations.' Similarly, Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens hybrids would likely have a mixture of the traits of both species such as larger heads, longer limbs, and narrower hips. Over time, some scientists believe Denisovans, Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens might have merged into a single human species with a mixture of all the traits. Dr Bence Viola, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Toronto, told MailOnline: 'I think it would have been impossible for Denisovans and Neanderthals to retain sufficient genetic isolation to remain a separate population. 'We know that they interbred with modern humans whenever they came into contact, and so the more contact there is, the more mixing happens – so they would have become a part of us.' Would they fit in? We don't currently know very much about how Denisovans lived, but research now shows Neanderthals might have struggled to fit in with modern society. One of the leading theories for why Homo sapiens survived while other species dropped off is that modern humans essentially 'tamed' ourselves. Unlike modern humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans didn't evolve to be so sociable. Scientists say they would find it difficult to integrate into our hyper-social society (AI-generated impression) Could Neanderthals and modern humans coexist? Scientists aren't sure whether Homo sapiens and Neanderthals could have cohabited permanently. There is no evidence of violence between the two species and we know that groups met and interbred frequently. However, Neanderthals are not as pro-social as modern humans and lived in much smaller groups. Homo sapiens also have a long history of violence and discrimination targeted against other human groups. In large, connected modern cities this could lead to conflict between the two species. Modern humans developed genes that allowed us to become more sociable, develop larger social networks, and work with our fellow humans. Dr Noel says: 'Unlike their modern human contemporaries, Neanderthals lived in small, fairly isolated groups. 'If there was an accident that killed a number of their hunters or some other crisis occurred, they did not always have others to reach out to. As a result, their numbers would drop below what you need to be sustainable.' Dr Noel points out that research into Neanderthal genes suggests they were less cognitively flexible, had greater difficulties processing language, and lacked genes related to self-awareness, creativity, and behaviours intended to benefit others. 'In the highly connected world we all live in, I think Neanderthals would have been left behind, or at least, left out,' says Dr Noel. In a world where Neanderthals lived alongside other human species, this could really change the way society was structured. Professor Spikins says that while modern humans became 'tamer, more playful and more friendly to each other,' those changes came alongside 'being a bit easily led'. She adds: 'If Neanderthals were better at not "following the herd" and more of those tendencies were present, I bet much of our world would be different; they might not be easily swayed by social media!' How would the world be different? If Neanderthals and Denisovans hadn't gone extinct thousands of years ago, the world might be a very different place. From the evidence we have of these ancient species, we know that they lived in much smaller communities and had a far more limited impact on the land. In fact, Dr Zeberg points out that modern humans appear to be unique in the way that we modify the world around us through agriculture and large cities. One strange consequence of this is that a world where Homo sapiens are not dominant might mean a world without pets. There is no evidence that Neanderthals and Denisovans attempted to nurture relationships with animals through domestication - that means no horses, cats, dogs or even modern agricultural species like cattle and sheep. But with more of our relative anti-social genes, humanity may also have avoided some of its more destructive tendencies. Professor Spikins says: 'If Neanderthals had been the ones to survive, we might not have the problem we have with climate change, as their tendency to be more isolated within their separate groups might have limited how technology spread and got used, and how much the environment got exploited.' THE DENISOVANS EXPLAINED Who were they? The Denisovans are an extinct species of human that appear to have lived in Siberia and even down as far as southeast Asia. The individuals belonged to a genetically distinct group of humans that were distantly related to Neanderthals but even more distantly related to us. Although remains of these mysterious early humans have mostly been discovered at the Denisova Cave in the Altai Mountains in Siberia, DNA analysis has shown the ancient people were widespread across Asia. Scientists were able to analyse DNA from a tooth and from a finger bone excavated in the Denisova cave in southern Siberia. The discovery was described as 'nothing short of sensational.' In 2020, scientists reported Denisovan DNA in the Baishiya Karst Cave in Tibet. This discovery marked the first time Denisovan DNA had been recovered from a location that is outside Denisova Cave. How widespread were they? Researchers are now beginning to find out just how big a part they played in our history. DNA from these early humans has been found in the genomes of modern humans over a wide area of Asia, suggesting they once covered a vast range. They are thought to have been a sister species of the Neanderthals, who lived in western Asia and Europe at around the same time. The two species appear to have separated from a common ancestor around 200,000 years ago, while they split from the modern human Homo sapien lineage around 600,000 years ago. Last year researchers even claimed they could have been the first to reach Australia. Aboriginal people in Australia contain both Neanderthal DNA, as do most humans, and Denisovan DNA. This latter genetic trace is present in Aboriginal people at the present day in much greater quantities than any other people around the world. How advanced were they? Bone and ivory beads found in the Denisova Cave were discovered in the same sediment layers as the Denisovan fossils, leading to suggestions they had sophisticated tools and jewellery. Professor Chris Stringer, an anthropologist at the Natural History Museum in London, said: 'Layer 11 in the cave contained a Denisovan girl's fingerbone near the bottom but worked bone and ivory artefacts higher up, suggesting that the Denisovans could have made the kind of tools normally associated with modern humans. 'However, direct dating work by the Oxford Radiocarbon Unit reported at the ESHE meeting suggests the Denisovan fossil is more than 50,000 years old, while the oldest 'advanced' artefacts are about 45,000 years old, a date which matches the appearance of modern humans elsewhere in Siberia.' Did they breed with other species? Yes. Today, around 5 per cent of the DNA of some Australasians – particularly people from Papua New Guinea – is Denisovans. Now, researchers have found two distinct modern human genomes - one from Oceania and another from East Asia - both have distinct Denisovan ancestry. The genomes are also completely different, suggesting there were at least two separate waves of prehistoric intermingling between 200,000 and 50,000 years ago. But what they did not expect to find was individuals from East Asia carry a uniquely different type.
Telegraph
2 days ago
- Telegraph
Why cats prefer sleeping on their left side
Cats prefer to sleep on their left side to protect themselves from predators, a study has found. The pets sleep for up to 16 hours a day and often curl up or stretch out for a snooze in opportune places. But the way the animal settles down is not random, and there is an evolutionarily hard-wired logic underpinning it, according to a study from the Ruhr University Bochum in Germany. Scientists found cats lie on their left side around two-thirds of the time, which shows that it was done deliberately. They looked at clips on YouTube of more than 400 sleeping cats and logged which side they were sleeping on. Data revealed that 266 of the cats (66.5 per cent) were on their left side, leaving scientists to conclude this was a survival trait from their history in the wild. Sleeping on their left side means when they wake, their left eye is able to see the local area unobstructed by the cat's own body. This visual information is then processed by the right side of the brain. This hemisphere is what processes threats and is responsible for escaping danger as well as knowing an individual animal's position. This puts the cat at an advantage compared to if it was to sleep on its right side – when the information is processed by the left side of the brain, which is less specialised to aid a swift escape. Anti-predator vigilance This leftward preference is just one of the many ways in which cats protect themselves. 'Sleep is one of the most vulnerable states for an animal, as anti-predator vigilance is drastically reduced, especially in deep sleeping phases,' according to the study. 'Domestic cats are both predators and prey (e.g. for coyotes) and sleep an average of 12–16 hours a day. 'Therefore, they spend almost 60-65% of their lifetime in a highly vulnerable state. To reduce predation risks, cats prefer to rest in elevated positions so that predators are more visible to them and the cats, in turn, are more visually concealed from predators. 'In such a spot, predators can access cats only from below. Thus, their preference for resting in an elevated position can provide comfort, safety, and a clear vantage point for monitoring their environments. 'We hypothesised that a lateralised sleeping position further increases the chances of quickly detecting predators (or to identify careless prey) when awoken.' Threat-processing leftward bias Pregnant cows are known to prefer their left side while sleeping for a similar reason, experts believe. The scientists also found that the pawedness of a cat, whether it preferred its left or right side, is likely not to blame for the sleeping preference. A 2017 study found that male cats tend to prefer their left paws and females are more right-paw dominant. 'We are inclined to believe that the significant leftward bias in sleeping position in cats may have been evolutionarily driven by hemispheric asymmetries of threat processing,' the scientists add in their paper, published in the journal Current Biology.
The Independent
2 days ago
- The Independent
Why our chins remain an evolutionary mystery
Scientists are still trying to understand the evolutionary reasons behind unique human features, such as the chin and the relative size of testicles. The concept of convergent evolution, where a feature evolves multiple times independently, serves as a natural experiment to determine the purpose of body parts. Analysis of testicle size across various mammals, including monkeys, gorillas, chimps, and dolphins, reveals a consistent correlation between larger testicles and promiscuous mating behaviors. This correlation suggests that larger testicles evolved to facilitate sperm competition in species with multiple partners, with human testicle size falling in the middle. The human chin remains an evolutionary mystery because its uniqueness among mammals, including Neanderthals, prevents the use of convergent evolution to test hypotheses about its purpose.
